Research on Abortion Healthcare Providers

Comprehensive analysis based on surveying 270 abortion healthcare providers and conducting in-depth interviews to understand challenges and available resources.

JANE’S LIST

A Platform for Abortion Clinics

3 months — 2023

Erica Fink, Elaine Gao, Yifan Zhang

Problem statement

Jane’s List is a platform designed for abortion clinics to find vetted, pro-choice local vendors. Clinic managers say it has the potential to save them tremendous time and effort, enable them to negotiate better prices, and ultimately can allow clinics to evolve and best serve patients, especially as policy puts the location of clinics in continued flux.

Research Overview

Duration

Scope

Research, outreach / recruitment, exploratory interviews, ideation, storyboarding, participatory research, prototyping, UX using behavioral psychology, partnership building

Understanding Abortion Healthcare

This research provides critical insights into the challenges faced by abortion healthcare providers across the United States. Through comprehensive surveys and in-depth interviews, we aim to shed light on both clinical and administrative aspects of abortion care, ultimately contributing to improved support systems for these essential healthcare professionals.

Research Method & Approach

Core takeaway

Participant Criteria

Included clinic administrators and clinical staff

Covered red, blue, and swing states

Included current and former providers to understand reasons for leaving

Key Challenges (Visual Summary)

Medical Community

AHPs face discrimination within the medical community, creating professional isolation.

Soft Skills

Abortion procedures are easy to teach, but the soft skills of care require team coordination and nuanced training.

Human Connection

Humanizing and building connections help normalize abortion care.

local Vendors

AHPs face discrimination within the medical community, creating professional isolation.

Geography of Care

The geography of abortion care (e.g., travel doctors, telehealth) impacts service availability.

Balance

AHPs feel torn between normalizing abortion and safety concerns.

AHP Network

The AHP network is strong but can be hard to access due to non-mainstream channels and vetting requirements.

Stress & Fear

AHPs experience stress and fear over potential clinic closures due to policy or elections.

Abortion care providers juggle so much beyond the act of performing abortions — from maintaining clinics, to training volunteers, to navigating the medical field — and each of these responsibilities is made more difficult due to abortion stigma. Even something like finding a plumber for their facilities can be an inordinately challenging task.

Trust-Building Process

We initially emailed clinics across the country but received limited responses due to safety concerns. After building trust with a subject matter expert, our participant pool grew significantly, demonstrating the importance of relationship-building.

Stigma Survey Findings

Based on comprehensive research from the 2018 Reproductive Health journal

81%

Perceived Stigma

Fear of rejection, isolation, criticism from others

68%

Enacted Stigma

Actual discrimination, harassment, and aggression

33%

Internalized Stigma

Feelings of guilt, shame, and anxiety

6%

No Stigma

Reported no abortion-related stigma at all

Decision guide

We next met with four providers in different contexts to learn what elements of our three concepts worked, what didn’t, and to iterate on our solutions.

Sample Structure:

  1. Build rapport through introductions

  2. Share context to our research and pause to validate our learnings thus far

  3. Workshop each concept:

    • see how the opportunity area resonates

    • walk through the storyboard

    • solicit overall feedback and gut reactions

    • gather detailed feedback for each step in an idea’s process

    • run exercises like “build it, break it, fix it”

From these interviews, we:

  • validated: (A) the challenge of finding local vendors (B) interest in volunteer and student involvement made easier through onboarding support.

  • learned: (A) specific details for what should go into the vetting process (B) who the right partners are (C) when volunteer efforts are impactful (D) what elements of a review would most benefit providers and be easy to fill out (E) what safety concerns exist digitally for clinics.

  • pivoted: away from the “Family Dinner Event Series,” given substantial safety concerns that require extensive iteration on the idea.

  • newly considered: combining the “Student Rolodex Initiative” and “Provider-to-Provider Platform.”

  • and prioritized: staying inclusive of scenarios where clinics are most isolated or stigmatized.